Audax67 wrote:Over here it's "Cyclistes mettez pied à terre" (cyclists, put foot to ground) so all you need to do to comply is touch the road with your toe and away again.

That's more reminiscent of the arguments there used to be about what cyclists had to do to comply with a HALT sign. IIRC, the foot down was a rule of either the RTTC or BCF, perhaps both. The same considerations apply to the more recent STOP signs, of course, but the days of policemen whiling away their time reporting offenders for not coming to a halt are long gone. Before anybody spells this out, I do know you can stop with both feet on the pedals, and you can dab a foot on the floor without stopping.

Audax67 wrote:You can always argue that "Cyclists dismount" is an observation rather than an imperative. We do dismount, now & then.

I suspect that that's one difference between the British way and the French example you mentioned. Your quip is probably only a shade too OTT for some loophole merchant to go to court and present it as a defence. I'm not convinced they'd spend much time laughing on your side of the Channel.

These signs *are* advisory. And it is not an offence not to dismount, but they may be in place because of a condition that would make it an offence to continue riding. For example, they may be used where a cycle track or shared use facility enters a pedestrian area.

This is one reason that some indicate a degree of caution. The other is that the signs may be in place because of a hazard.

One could argue that a dismount sign is seldom the best way to inform cyclists of the changing conditions, and this is exacerbated by the fact that some local authorities have deemed it appropriate to place dismount signs at every minor hazard and driveway crossing.

Unfortunately, there is no clear and definitive answer. The signs are advisory, and a cyclist who ignores one is not committing any offence by doing so. But the sign *may* be there for a good reason, and there could be traffic orders or local byelaws that do make it an offence to continue. If they are there for a good reason, and someone ignoring them causes or is involved in an accident, they may be held liable, or partly liable for the consequences.

“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom

pedaller wrote:The consensus seems to favour the belief that these signs are advisory - fine but some others indicate a degree of caution, regarding conformity.

Two additional questions for complete clarity.

1 Is it an offence not to dismount and

2 Where is the definitive answer to be found (and hopefully not buried in a load of legal-ese)?

I can assure you that we are 100% right about the legal status of "cyclists dismount" signs. It isn't just a belief here on a cycling forum. The offence of ignoring a cyclists dismount sign simply does not exist.

You need to understand the way in which the law works. Generally, in the absence of a law specifically creating an offence no offence is committed. The law as it stands only creates an offence of disobeying certain specified traffic signs and "cyclists dismount" is not one of them. As others have said, the signs can be placed at places where it would be illegal to proceed. In these cases it will be illegal because you have ignored some other mandatory instruction not the cyclists dismount sign.

Here are some examples:

Where a cyclists dismount sign occurs at the end of a pavement cycle path you are not commiting an offence by ignoring the sign. You do not have to dismount before rejoining the carriageway. However you are committing an offence if you ride along the section of pavement which is not a cycle path.

Where a cyclists dismount sign is placed on the entry to a pedestrian area you are not commiting an offence by ignoring the sign but there may be actual regulatory signs (red circle ones meaning no vehicles or no cycling), no entry signs or local byelaws which make cycling an offence.

Where a cyclists dismount sign is near a narrowing on a shared use path you are not commiting an offence by ignoring the sign. In the highly unlikely case that you were to be prosecuted for an offence related to reckless cycling (say you hit someone and injured them) the fact that you had ignored advice to dismount at that point could be used as evidence.

Hope that helps

EDIT: Sorry for the duplication Vorpal. I started writing before you posted and got distracted

Last edited by Bicycler on Tue Aug 12, 2014 3:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Thanks. Sounds like they're advisory because of their colour and shape, regardless of what's written on them. 'Rectangles give information' [b][u]and only 'circles give orders'.[/u][/b]

Now here's an unrelated anomaly.

A round sign with a cyclist in the middle means no cycling. If it then has a red, diagonal bar through it, it must mean no, no cycling (cycling is compulsory). See the equivalent U turn sign. It has an upturned U with a bar through it. Following the no cycling (pedestrian, horse riding etc) sign logic, it should not have a bar. In grammatical terms, it's a double negative.

This came to light to me having seen all 3 signs appear on a multi-use path. But they should be(for cycling at least) a blue rectangle with a cycle on it.

Watch out, traffic engineers aren't all familiar with the correct signs to use e.g. down and up hill signs.

pedaller wrote:A round sign with a cyclist in the middle means no cycling. If it then has a red, diagonal bar through it, it must mean no, no cycling (cycling is compulsory). See the equivalent U turn sign. It has an upturned U with a bar through it. Following the no cycling (pedestrian, horse riding etc) sign logic, it should not have a bar. In grammatical terms, it's a double negative.

Same with the prohibited right and left turn signs. You are right that they are anomalies.

pedaller wrote:Thanks. Sounds like they're advisory because of their colour and shape, regardless of what's written on them. 'Rectangles give information' [b][u]and only 'circles give orders'.[/u][/b]

Generally yes, but as you've noticed there are exceptions. Signs are either mandatory or advisory because of what the law says rather than their shape (though the shape is a very good clue).

A stop sign is a mandatory sign which gives an order but it is an octagon

A start of motorway regulations sign is a mandatory sign but it is a rectangle

A shared use cycle path sign is a round sign but does not require pedestrians or cyclists to use the path rather than the adjacent carriageway

pedaller wrote:A round sign with a cyclist in the middle means no cycling. If it then has a red, diagonal bar through it, it must mean no, no cycling (cycling is compulsory). See the equivalent U turn sign. It has an upturned U with a bar through it. Following the no cycling (pedestrian, horse riding etc) sign logic, it should not have a bar. In grammatical terms, it's a double negative.

Same with the prohibited right and left turn signs. You are right that they are anomalies.

pedaller wrote:Thanks. Sounds like they're advisory because of their colour and shape, regardless of what's written on them. 'Rectangles give information' [b][u]and only 'circles give orders'.[/u][/b]

Generally yes, but as you've noticed there are exceptions. Signs are either mandatory or advisory because of what the law says rather than their shape (though the shape is a very good clue).

A stop sign is a mandatory sign which gives an order but it is an octagon

A start of motorway regulations sign is a mandatory sign but it is a rectangle

A shared use cycle path sign is a round sign but does not require pedestrians or cyclists to use the path rather than the adjacent carriageway

At the bottom of Northumberland Street (Newcastles main shopping street and pedestrianised) there is a red roundel with a cycle diagram but it's crossed out. I commented to my friend that meant cycling up there would be ok as that sign has no meaning.